Lyudmil Tsvetkov - Chess Forums - Page 13

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Feb 10, 2018

0

#241

SmyslovFan wrote:

pretzel2 wrote:

or one more sock puppet

Only one more?

At first, they accused GWTR so.

Ask him if he is one more sock puppet.

Chess.com has their way to check accounts.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Feb 10, 2018

0

#242

SteamGear wrote:

Duck-Season wrote:

I believe one of the biggest problems here is really nothing but severe envy.

...

Instead all we find is this irrational and inexplicable hatred.

... all the unwarranted criticism

Actually, the response he's received has been quite rational, explicable, and warranted.

It's a direct result of the way he chose to promote (and discuss) his book—by self-aggrandizing, calling others "weak", mocking titled players and world champions (both past and present), and insulting any who dare to question his credibility (or his chess notions).

Had he simply came on and left his ego at the door, I'm sure the reaction would've been quite different.

Granted, it's inevitable that one will encounter backlash when promoting a book—but such is the life of any author. Picking fights with the detractors and critics isn't the right way to win them over. All that's done is drag things down a muddy path, full of insults, hostility, and outlandish claims.

On the contrary, I am posting good games all the time. Here one more of Carlsen. It is not my fault people don't spot the good chess content.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Feb 10, 2018

0

#243

Play the Dutch, use the central bind concept of 'The Secret of Chess'.

Carlsen obviously knows it.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Feb 10, 2018

0

#244

JessieMillano2015 wrote:

His book The Secret Of Chess isn't interesting. There is only one secret in Chess: cheating with engine. I'm sure Mr Tsvetkov's book isn't about nor it teaches his costumers how to cheat online - or maybe on the board.

I am sure this is your forte.

One usually talks about what one thinks.

You are constantly talking of cheating, so you might be one.

I am only mentioning deep knowledge, so quite probably that is what I am interested in.

GWTR

Feb 10, 2018

0

#245

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

SmyslovFan wrote:

pretzel2 wrote:

or one more sock puppet

Only one more?

At first, they accused GWTR so.

Ask him if he is one more sock puppet.

Chess.com has their way to check accounts.

I'm OK as long as no one calls me a hockey puck

edilio134

Feb 10, 2018

0

#246

among the various recent awards chess.com offers to us should be fine to have a bagde like

LTfan\LThater ...something like..

stewardjandstewardj

Feb 10, 2018

0

#247

hitthepin wrote:

Steward, as I said to , people are entitled to have their own opinions. If he’s not going to listen why bother anyway?

While people are entitled to their own opinions, sometimes, it's the equivalent of someone believing that vaccines cause autism just because one scientist made the conclusion of such with faulty data, or someone believing that global warming doesn't exist even though over 97% of scientists in the field believe it not only exists, but is caused by us. They are entitled to have their opinions, but as far as common sense goes with the proof given, they are wrong, and their entitlement to an opinion does not change that.

And I understand that they will probably not listen, but one of my greatest pet peeves is when someone is stubborn enough to believe something that is obviously wrong. Even though these people will probably not change their minds, the time is worth it for me. I have gotten many people to change their mind before, and only the illogical ones remain. If I could get just one of these to wake up to reality and to start favoring logic over their initial opinion, I would be happy.

Tja_05

Feb 10, 2018

0

#248

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Patterns, patterns and more patterns.

Only in this way one will be able to beat SF and get very strong.

Check out some patterns in the free available samples: www.secretofchess.com

Ok, who even CARES about beating machines?! We don't play engines, we play PEOPLE. And until you play some live games, with some real people, where EVERYONE can see it, no one is going to believe you. Your claim of being over 3500 (stronger than everyone in the world) is as preposterous as me saying I can play 18 games simultaneously, against grandmasters, facing away from the board, while eating a chicken dinner, and playing videogames all at once, and winning every single game. (I'm allergic to chicken.) NO ONE IS THAT STRONG, AND NO ONE WILL BE ANY TIME SOON!

stewardjandstewardj

Feb 10, 2018

0

#249

Duck-Season wrote:

I believe one of the biggest problems here is really nothing but severe envy.

Mr. Tsvetkov , a diplomat and co-developer of Stockfish writes yet another book on chess, he should be applauded for helping to give chess players all over the world a tool they use on a daily basis.

Instead all we find is this irrational and inexplicable hatred.

Even those who choose to support him and call for an end to all the unwarranted criticism gets attacked and threatened with being reported.

Then I looked at cheeser3536’s profile.....he posts a few weak games as his ‘ best’ and he is busy writing a chess blog no less with about fifteen links to it on his profile, but what has he ever done for chess? Has he ever written a book? Has he ever been involved in developing new chess technology?

NO, he has done nothing....no-thing and so like most critics he attacks the people who did do something.

After alll that is what a critic is : somebody who can’t do it himself.

ps. Your little threats are as weak as you are chesster911

If I had envy, that would be stupid. I'm not saying that i wouldn't want to be the best in the world. But to have envy is the equivalent of having envy for the best biochemist in the world. I'm not interested in being either one, nor am I envious.

Being a diplomat does not mean anything about chess, so stop bringing it up. That just means he's more skilled than us in bringing two nations to peace than us.

He is NOT the co-developer of StockFish. The developers are Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Gary Linscott, Tord Romstad. Don't lie about this again. I don't even know WHERE you got that from. Lyudmil didn't go that far. His claims are outrageous. Yours are just stupid lies that could be proven with the Internet.

The "tool" he gave to chess players around the world is what exactly? If you mean SF, then you're wrong as discussed. If you mean his books, then it's just like any other book, but more neo with a whole bunch of pseudo terms that only help in confusion the reader.

I don't show hatred, nor should anyone else here. Maybe anger, and definitely some frustration, but not hatred. And it's definitely not "Irrational and inexplicable. We gave plenty of reasons. Lyudmil just advertised his book by claiming he is the best chess player in the world.

chesster has not done much more chess, but one thing he did do is denounce Lyudmil for claiming he did as much as he claims he did.

If chesster's "threats" are weak, than yours are virtually nonexistent. Your reasoning is virtually nonexistent, avoiding all of the logic we present with your own twisted version of logic. If you are going to argue on this discussion, please respond to other people, don't just ignore the stuff we say so you can keep your position

stewardjandstewardj

Feb 10, 2018

0

#250

Duck-Season wrote:

Come to think of it there has never been a time in human history where the great minds, the thinkers, prophets and philosophers were not criticized, insulted or prosecuted.

This is simply what the ignorant, uneducated and unwashed masses do.

In time Mr. Tsvetkov’s contributions will take their rightful place in chess history.

Assuming he is the best chess player in the world, he may be right, yet is horribly losing the discussion, and is much worse at losing common sense than we suspect. If he ends up showing up in the news as best chess player in the world, then that will prove that he was right, yet will prove that he is so bad at using logic, he couldn't even win this discussion when he was so right!

stewardjandstewardj

Feb 10, 2018

0

#251

GWTR wrote:

hitthepin wrote:

?!?!?!?!

GWTR’s game with is already over?!

Heck yeah. He's good! (And, much more important, one of the good guys. I was wrong.)

I have a question. Who exactly is Bobby_Topolov?

stewardjandstewardj

Feb 10, 2018

0

#252

drmrboss wrote:

I am impressed that Lyudmil (Mr 1400) successful converted too newbies into his crappy logic!

sadly, these are not newbies, but players that each have around a 1600 rating.

stewardjandstewardj

Feb 10, 2018

0

#253

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

pretzel2 wrote:

i'm the guy that doesn't claim to be better than carlsen, or claim to be 3500, or have sock puppets promoting the sale of a book. that's who i am. who are you tevetkov? you make the two claims, and don't have any evidence whatever to back them up. who are you to make claims like this and just expect people to believe you?

All I have claimed is I have written a good book.

Some strong titled players call it REVOLUTIONARY.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-secret-of-chess

https://www.chess.com/blog/Swordfish55/review-the-secret-of-chess

http://www.secretofchess.com/files/17772/ckfinder/images/Review%20on%20The%20Secret%20of%20Chess.pdf

Why would you disagree with Smerdon, Welling and Grooten?

Because it is easier to insult than trying to understand something new.

Could you give Grooten's review in the form of text isntead of a link. For some reason, my computer won't let me get on certain sites, and yours is one for some reason.

And from what I see, the other have never called your book revolutionary.

And you have claimed MUCH more than that you have written a good book. You have claimed to be better than any chess playing entity, human or machine. You have called these weak, and so you are the only stong chess player in the world. You have also claimed that your chess book is the best chess book in the world. DONT EVER CLAIM THAT IS THE ONLY THING YOU ARE CLAIMING EVER AGAIN UNLESS YOU STICK TO IT

stewardjandstewardj

Feb 10, 2018

0

#254

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Iam2busy wrote:

Okay. What if I told you that I was better than everyone at swimming, even Michael Phelps?

And that you should pay me for swimming classes?

Would you trust me? If not, what would you do?

Would you ask me to show you?

And what if I refused to swim in the pool because there were "too many people" inside?

I would trust Phelps, if he had written a manual on swimming, from where it is clear he knows all the secrets of swimming.

In case there is no doubt he has written the manual.

We are not interested if Phelps SWIMS well, but whether his approach to swimming is SOUND.

In this case, verifiable information in the manual(and you have unlimited time to analyse it) is sufficient evidence the approach is sound and performing.

Wow, amazing. I don't even understand your logic. All you have to do is think, "How good is Micheal Phelps compared to the rest of the world?" Then think "Does Iam2busy have any credibility to being a good swimmer?" If the answer is no, then Micheal Phelps is a better swimmer than Iam2busy.

If he does have credibility, then how much? If he wrote a book on how to swim, then claims it is the best swimming book in the world because it has hundreds of coined terms that are psuedo terms anyway, and calls the book neo and modern, will we believe him? NO!!!

This is what we are doing to you, except in terms of chess.

stewardjandstewardj

Feb 10, 2018

0

#255

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

drmrboss wrote:

I am impressed that Lyudmil (Mr 1400) successful converted too newbies into his crappy logic!

If I am 1400, you are just 200!

I guess you are one of those players who have got to 2000 online with A LOT of LUCK.

So, a 1800 player who was very very lucky. Happens sometimes.

I am just the opposite: I have been 2200 OTB, with a lot of bad luck, few played games, etc.

Now, I am 500-600 elos stronger, so you should look up to me in awe.

I promise to teach you something, if you buy my book.

Do you realize how INCREDIBLY STUPID it is to say that the person got lucky with their rating JUST BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH YOU?!?!?!?!?

stewardjandstewardj

Feb 10, 2018

0

#256

TremaniSunChild wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Patterns, patterns and more patterns.

Only in this way one will be able to beat SF and get very strong.

Check out some patterns in the free available samples: www.secretofchess.com

Ok, who even CARES about beating machines?! We don't play engines, we play PEOPLE. And until you play some live games, with some real people, where EVERYONE can see it, no one is going to believe you. Your claim of being over 3500 (stronger than everyone in the world) is as preposterous as me saying I can play 18 games simultaneously, against grandmasters, facing away from the board, while eating a chicken dinner, and playing videogames all at once, and winning every single game. (I'm allergic to chicken.) NO ONE IS THAT STRONG, AND NO ONE WILL BE ANY TIME SOON!

I agree with everything you said except the first sentence. He might have only a 0.00001% chance to be able to beat StockFish according to the proof he gave, but if he does beat StockFish and proves it, the world will definitely care!

Unfortunately for Lyudmil, that probably won't happen. He will live and die as the person with an FIDE rating in the 2000s, and a book that is just as helpful as any other book, assuming you don't get confused by the psuedo terms in the book. Maybe at the most, he might become a CM, maybe NM at most, and that will pretty much be it

stewardjandstewardj

Feb 10, 2018

0

#257

Wait, Lyudmil CAN beat StockFish

How to beat StockFish:

1. Play StockFish

2. Lose

3. Post the game you have played, but post your position as StockFish's, and yours as StockFish's

4. Get people to believe that you actually won even though you lost

Tada!

DjonniDerevnja

Feb 10, 2018

0

#258

Why Lyudmil might face unfamliar problems if playing humans:

Humans do inaccurasies. To win you have to spot them, and punish them. Playing only computers you probably will see that this is a different game, and not the same as he is trained to. Humans play outside the computermainlines.

Pulpofeira

Feb 10, 2018

0

#259

DjonniDerevnja escribió:

Why Lyudmil might face unfamliar problems if playing humans:

Humans do inaccurasies. To win you have to spot them, and punish them. Playing only computers you probably will see that this is a different game, and not the same as he is trained to. Humans play outside the computermainlines.

Another unfamiliar problem is that many humans are better than one self.

DjonniDerevnja

Feb 10, 2018

0

#260

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

drmrboss wrote:

I am impressed that Lyudmil (Mr 1400) successful converted too newbies into his crappy logic!

If I am 1400, you are just 200!

I guess you are one of those players who have got to 2000 online with A LOT of LUCK.

So, a 1800 player who was very very lucky. Happens sometimes.

I am just the opposite: I have been 2200 OTB, with a lot of bad luck, few played games, etc.

Now, I am 500-600 elos stronger, so you should look up to me in awe.

I promise to teach you something, if you buy my book.

I am heading towards 2000, Maybe it takes 10 years. And to get there i will use my luck. Human chess is all about luck management. In most games you will have luck. Your opponent makes an inaccurasie. The skill is to spot that lucky thing and punish it, and after that increase the advantage and win the game. You will not have luck in all games, and when out of luck, nothing to punish. In those games its good to save the draw.